Bill would give time to review bills

SACRAMENTO  Proposed state laws can avoid critical public review with last-minute changes that force legislators to cast a rushed vote — sometimes before even having time to read a bill or analyze its fiscal impacts.

Critics contend the practice compromises the integrity of the legislative process and contributes to the cynicism residents have of their government. Pushes to end such last-minute sub-outs have so far been rebuffed.

Now, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is proposing constitutional amendments that would require bills be in print and online for at least 72 hours before any action can be taken by the Legislature.

Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen said the measures would allow her colleagues to thoroughly analyze bills before voting, end late-night votes on last-minute backroom deals and help restore public trust.

“Frequently, the Legislature passes bills requiring greater transparency of other agencies, but it fails to hold itself accountable to those same standards of open, transparent, citizen-driven government,” Olsen, R-Modesto, told reporters on Monday.

Currently, lawmakers may pass bills with amendments once they are printed and distributed. The Legislature over the years has made decisions on the state budget, taxes, immigration and workers’ compensation reform shortly after drafting the language.

Among the myriad decisions was a late-night deal involving former San Diego Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher and then-Mayor Jerry Sanders to secure billions of dollars for local projects by lifting the cap on downtown redevelopment. Several city and county officials later expressed anger in being kept in the dark. The issue became moot when the state essentially ended redevelopment.

Wolk said the goal of the measures — Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 and Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 — is to shed more light on the legislative process.

“Good legislation can stand up to the scrutiny,” she said. “It’s worked in other states. It can work here.”

DeSaulnier said in his seven years there have been frequent times at the end of session when he wasn’t able to read the content of an “extremely important” measure.

“I think it just empowers the public and all the members more when you have the time to actually digest and read the material,” he said.

There are no registered opponents of the amendments.

Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, has opposed or withheld support for bills he didn’t have time to read, including a 150-plus-page measure passed at the end of the session to overhaul workers’ compensation.

“This is one of those last minute maneuvers that has me highly suspect of what’s in this bill,” Hueso, then an assemblyman, said at the time. “I can’t vote for something I can’t explain and I can’t explain whether this is going to be a good bill or a bad bill. We’re completely changing a system that’s highly complex. What’s the hurry?”

On Monday, Hueso said through a spokeswoman that he supports the 72-hour rule.

Among the sponsors of the amendments is the good-government group California Common Cause. Phillip Ung, its policy advocate, said often the most powerful interest groups have access and influence to spur eleventh-hour changes to legislation. Ung said he’s watched repeatedly as language was rushed into a bill, giving lawmakers just minutes to read it or hear it at a committee room off to the side of the floor ... “and vote on it late at night when they are sleep-deprived.”

“This is not the news that voters like to wake up to in the morning,” Ung said. “It’s definitely not news that builds trust in voters throughout the state.”

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 is scheduled to have its first committee hearing Tuesday.

A legislative analysis seems to suggest there is a strong tradition of last-minute legislation. It notes that a final version of the Declaration of Independence was adopted a day after it was printed. California’s Constitution was still being revised two days before its adoption, the analysis says. It suggests a 72-hour rule would be akin to requiring juries to wait three days after making a decision to vote on a final verdict.

“The waiting period allows courage and willpower to be undermined by second thoughts and doubt,” it says.

Others say the changes would give powerful special interests the time they need to marshal forces to quash a proposal. Veteran Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, D-Los Angeles, argues the amendments would have unintended consequences, none of them good for Californians.

“If somebody knows they can stop something, put a hold on something, they’ll do it. It’s leverage,” he said.